As Obama Golfs, Tanks Roll in Baghdad and a Country Unravels

[Acebb]

To say this low IQ President is disconnected from reality is an understatement

Iraq is unraveling fast. If reports of fighting between Maliki’s forces and troops loyal to President Masoum turn out to be correct, it means that the factional fighting that has torn apart the provinces has now spread to the capital—even as ISIS waits outside, licking its chops.
The fact that President Obama thought that the day of an Iraqi coup was a good time to hang on the Vineyard and get on the links is bad news. Either the President blew off warnings from his advisors, or the intel community got blindsided again. Both possibilities reflect badly on the management of the nation’s affairs.

http://www.the-american-interest.co...tanks-roll-in-baghdad-and-a-country-unravels/

 

[Acebb]

Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein warned Friday of the risk that the insurgent group ISIL could be preparing fighters to attack American and European targets.
“It has become clear that ISIL is recruiting fighters in Western countries, training them to fight its battles in the Middle East and possibly returning them to European and American cities to attack us in our backyard,” the California Democrat said in a statement backing military action authorized by President Barack Obama. “We simply cannot allow this to happen.”

Feinstein called for a broader military campaign against ISIL, not just the targeted missions authorized by the president.
“It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future. Inaction is no longer an option. I support actions by the administration to coordinate efforts with Iraq and other allies to use our military strength and targeting expertise to the fullest extent possible,” Feinstein said.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., warned of a similar possibility in an opinion piece for Time.com.


[h=1]Feinstein Warns of Risk of ISIL Attack on America, Says Must Be Confronted[/h]
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/fein...tack-on-america-says-must-be-confronted/?dcz=

I'm sure golfing with Ahmad Rashad was much more fun than paying attention to world affairs or US national security.

 

[russ1945]

His nickname should be "Bogie". He probably plays with just a putter.

 

[Acebb]

I'm sure ISIS are on the verge of surrender...

 

[Cheers]

"Tell the pilot to keep flying until he spots a dry golf course."

 

[Acebb]

 

[Acebb]

"Tell the pilot to keep flying until he spots a dry golf course."


@)

 

[Acebb]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Obama on Presidential vacations in 2008:

“You have to understand that if you seek that office, then you have to be prepared to give your life to it. Essentially, the bargain that I think every President strikes with the American people is, ‘you give me this office, then in turn my fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure, is gone. I am giving myself to you.’”

What a goofy liar this guy is.

 

[Ttratter]

This man is so well versed.

 

[duckhunter]

Iraq has been unraveling for 10 years.

 

[Ttratter]

Iraq has been unraveling for 10 years.

Iraq was on a path to freedom till we pulled the plug completely. Listen troops are stationed all over the whole world for a purpose, and they sign up for it. So no need to say we should not be there. If the troops do not wanna be some place then don't enlist that simple. There is no draft.

 

[rolltide]

wonder where all the liberals who have used the term "unauthorized war" are right now? they're certainly not cursing Obama for bombing and using drone missiles in Iraq while funneling weapons to Kurdish forces and employing a bunch of soldiers, errrr, officials ...if that isn't war, what is?

and, most importantly, where was the vote authorizing this activity?

how many mistakes can we make in one country for 25 years?

fuck obama and his "humanitarian mission" we don't give a fuck about people in that country...just got done murdering a million of them and these "enemies" are armed with OUR weapons.

Truly a clusterfuck and, as usual, the party responsible is totally silent on the matter

 

[russ1945]

Maybe it is just me but does this make sense. I can see where the President was given the title of Commander in Chief when this country was formed and the constitution was written. Look at who the President was then, George Washington. Well he was already basically the Commander in Chief and had not only lead this country to victory to attain it's independence but was involved as a soldier himself. We have continued to pass that title on to each and every President since even though they have not earned the title much less the trust of this country to make such vital decisions. Other than Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower who has had the true qualifications to make make vital military decisions. Now take a look around. The decisions that Obama makes along military lines are more like indecisions and they have affected not just this country but many others. I think it is time to rethink this title of Commander in Chief. In my opinion such a title should go to someone who has retired from active duty but otherwise is fully qualified to make intelligent long term decisions or at least suggest plans that solve an immediate problem. Obama announed our pull out in Iraq and Isis took advantage of that. Obama did it even though many military leaders said that was not a good idea. I shudder everytime I realize that Obama has such control over our military. The whole world is taking advantage of it, Putin, Hamas, Isis, it goes on and on. Obama called for Change, in this case I think he is right because Hope is vanishing on a daily basis not only for us but for people all over the world.

 

[russ1945]

Before 1947, the President was the only common superior of the Army (under the Secretary of War) and the Navy and Marine Corps (under the Secretary of the Navy).[SUP][41][/SUP] In accordance with the National Security Act of 1947 and the 1949 amendements to the same act, the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) became subject to the civilian control of the Secretary of Defense, a cabinet-level official appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP]
The Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 codified the default operational chain of command: running from the President to the Secretary of Defense, and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander.[SUP][50][/SUP] While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outranks all other military officers, he does not have operational command authority over the Armed Forces. However, the chairman does assist the president and the secretary of defense in the exercise of their command functions.[SUP][51]




Comment: and the President appoints the Secretary of Defense[/SUP]

 

[rolltide]

The whole world is taking advantage of it, Putin, Hamas, Isis, it goes on and on.

western media is sure doing a number on you if you're equating Putin with Hamas and Isis.

Russia and China are simply moving away from western economic and resource dependence at the expense of the EU and USA. They are not terrorist organizations

 

[Acebb]

Iraq has been unraveling for 10 years.

Here is what Obama had to say about Iraq in 2011:

"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."
...
Iraq's not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We're building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement," he said.

So he was lying then, right?

 

[rolltide]

from some anti-war nutjob...

Yazidis Weren’t Stranded, Pentagon Looks for Other Missions

State Dept Tries to Credit US With Solving Phony Problem

by Jason Ditz, August 13, 2014

Print This | Share This

The 40,000 Yazidis stranded on the mountain. That was the pretext for US military intervention in Iraq, as set out by President Obama last Thursday. The air war was commenced, and officials were talking up sending ground forces for “rescue” operations as recently as this afternoon.

But a funny thing happened when the US “advisers” got to Mount Sinjar. There weren’t 40,000 starving Yazidis stranded there. In fact, the indications are that there never were, and the Pentagon quickly dropped the “rescue” plan.

What happened? It turns out there were Yazidis already living on the top of the mountain, and while there were some refugees who fled up there, the humanitarian crisis was never what it was made out to be, and an influx of Kurdish PKK fighters from Syria quickly broke the overblown siege.The Pentagon is trying to manage the narrative by simply saying the rescue mission “appears unnecessary,” but the fact that it was used to start a US war remains, and the State Department is doubling down, trying to spin the lack of a crisis as vindication of the war.

“President said we’re going to break the siege of this mountain, and we broke that siege,” bragged Brett McGurk on Twitter, neglecting to mention that the siege was largely mythical in the first place. The Pentagon wasn’t nearly so daring as to take credit for solving a crisis that didn’t exist.Instead, the Pentagon is combing the countryside of northwestern Iraq, where their former casus belli was before it so rudely evaporated, and looking for other crises that they might use as a justification for continuing and escalating the war.

Officials seem to be totally ignoring the obvious question: where the false story of a massive Yazidi crisis came from in the first place. In that regard, there are no easy answers, though the obvious beneficiaries of the new US war are the Kurdish Peshmerga, which are suddenly getting flooded with Western arms to fight ISIS, and eventually, to fuel their secession.

The administration just seems grateful that they got an excuse to start a war they’ve been chomping at the bit for, and even if the excuse didn’t exactly pan out, they’ll quickly find another.
​

​

 

[hehateme82]

..

interesting read though.